This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," August 31, 2022. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: All right. And, Tucker, thank you.
And welcome to HANNITY.
Tonight, according to Biden's press secretary, if you voted for Donald Trump, you are a threat to democracy and will be dealt with as such. Are you or have you ever been a supporter of Donald Trump? Is this Joe Biden's unity that he talked about when he was inaugurated or is this about the soul of the nation that he's going to address tomorrow?
Now, coming up, we'll play her chilling remarks and preview tomorrow's big speech at Independence Hall where president unity is planning a call to action against Americans he's calling semi-fascists.
Plus, the golden state has a new regulation banning gas powered cars by 2035, but the very same state is now begging its residents, don't charge your electric vehicles because California's electric grid is about to crash. We have that report, straight ahead. So much for renewable energy.
Also, tonight, multiple new bombshell whistleblower allegations from inside the FBI. Agents are now sounding the alarm on the rampant political bias corrupting what should be America and the world's premier law enforcement agency.
But we begin with the very latest anti-Trump smear tactics surrounding the raid at Mar-a-Lago. At this hour, the Attorney General Merrick Garland is desperate to stop a federal judge from appointing a special master to review the case. In a filing, Biden's DOJ indicated that Americans should just simply trust their judgment.
Now, they also took the opportunity to shape public opinion with that image you see right there showing classified documents strewn across the floor next to a box full of frame "Time Magazine" covers. In a subsequent rebuttal, Trump's attorney stated, quote, the government's response gratuitously included a photograph of allegedly classified materials pulled from a container and spread across the floor for dramatic effect.
And on Trump -- on Truth Social, Trump responded, quote: Terrible the way the FBI during the raid of Mar-a-Lago threw documents haphazardly all over the floor, perhaps pretending it was me that did that, and then started taking pictures of them for the public to see. Thought they wanted them kept secret. Lucky -- luckily -- lucky I declassified.
Meanwhile, legal scholar Jonathan Turley who will join us in a minute tweeted this photo can leave an obviously misleading impression that secret documents were strewn over the floor when this appears to be the work of FBI agents. In that op-ed, Jonathan Turley continued, quote: For critics, the photo may appear to be another effort with prior leaks to help frame the public optics and discussion. Clearly, the court did not need the visual aid of a picture of documents with covers. It seems clearly it was intended for public consumption.
Now, keep in mind, this case is being handled by the same Washington office that gave Hillary Clinton a free pass after she mishandled top secret classified material on her unsecured private servers and then attempted to destroy the evidence. Remember, destroyed 33,000 emails, Bleach Bit, hammers, et cetera. This is also the same FBI office that brought us Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the Mueller witch hunt, the dirty dossier, FISA fraud, frequent MSDNC guest Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew Weissmann.
The very same office where a top agent named Tim Tebow just, quote, suddenly retired. Tebow was reportedly escorted out of the bureau after allegations of liberal bias and misconduct in the Hunter Biden investigation. His office is accused of slow-walking the probe into Hunter's laptop from hell. And in the fall of 2020, in order to secure the election for Joe Biden.
As Donald Trump stated, quote, people that retired from the FBI, they're not perp walked out of the headquarters building on a hot sunny afternoon in August after being screamed at and ridiculed by his bosses like the laptop. This was the firing from hell.
But now, Chris Wray and Merrick Garland are asking us to simply trust this very same office in the Washington sewer and swamp with an investigation into Biden's chief political rival. In fact, they want absolutely no scrutiny, no oversight at all whatsoever. Now, first, they raided Mar-a- Lago and would not let Trump's attorneys observe the search. Then they demanded that Mar-a-Lago turn off all security cameras so they could conduct the search in private. I thought we wanted dash cams and cams on police for a good reason, keeps everybody honest.
Next, they did not want the affidavit released. Then they the heavily redacted -- they heavily redacted the affidavit after a judge ordered the release. They even redacted the reasons for the redactions and now they don't want a special master to review the case.
So what exactly are they hiding? And why would Trump or anyone else for that matter trust Biden's DOJ and the Washington FBI field office with a politically charged investigation based on their history?
Here with a lot more is FOX News contributor Jonathan Turley.
Jonathan, good to see you. Let's talk about your comments about this picture. Merrick Garland had made the statement he will speak through his court filings and in a court of law and not leak to the press. I think that has been violated numerous times starting with the leak to "The Washington Post". Oh, we believe that nuclear information was included there. Where did that come from, and where did this picture come from?
JONATHAN TURLEY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, the picture was something immediately stood out. It's attachment F, and when you look at the actual text, the only purpose of attachment F appears to be the statement that there were covers on these documents showing they're classified.
Obviously, the court didn't need a picture to show that. It wasn't even contested by the Trump people. But instead, they went ahead and put that in and I think it was for public consumption. I think they're -- they like that image and they wanted to get it out there.
But what's also curious is the level of detail in this filing. This is the Department of Justice that previously said that not a single sentence should be released from the affidavit because national security would be harmed or the investigation would be undermined. They did release a redacted affidavit that confirmed many points.
It really did show that their earlier representation was overwrought and overbroad. Now they're making the same arguments. They're saying that a special master would endanger national security and their case. Why?
I mean, the special master is an extension of the court. They are appointed all the time. It would be a special master helps to create a record upon which the court can make decisions. I thought that the legal aspects of their filing was really transparently weak.
HANNITY: Well, they're making the pretext that they don't want the special master, that they're relying on their taint team instead. But isn't the taint team within their own organization, isn't that akin to investigating themselves?
TURLEY: Well, these taint teams have been very controversial in past cases. The Department of Justice is notorious for overclassification and overredaction. The Department of Justice has already recognized that it may have actually gathered up attorney-client privilege material, I would be astonished if they didn't.
This search was so ridiculously broad. I mean, the judge allowed -- the magistrate allowed the FBI to take whole boxes if a single piece of paper had a classification marking and then take all the boxes stored with that box. I mean, obviously, they took virtually everything in the storage room.
And so, you know, when the government now says well this is ours, you know, we shouldn't have to give it back -- well, that's the point of a special master to determine what you gathered, whether it is appropriately yours.
HANNITY: But what could the national security concern be? Because that's what they're claiming that this would somehow impact national security which is -- which seems to be their fall back on any issue that they disagree with Donald Trump on.
TURLEY: Yeah, this is a -- this is a common mantra. I've been in national security cases. I have had these fights in the past and it's -- they -- they make the identical type of argument.
There isn't a danger to national security in the use of a special master. Special master can be cleared. Counsel like myself are often cleared for TS/SCI material. All of that is done in many cases.
And so I think that they actually really undermined their credibility with this filing, particularly after just releasing the redacted affidavit which they said couldn't be done without endangering national security.
HANNITY: Jonathan, I talked about this being the same office with the Russia hoax in Washington. I talked about FISA abuse. I talked about the double standard as it relates to Hillary Clinton. We can go back to James Comey recognizing crimes were committed but no prosecutor would ever prosecute. That didn't even include the 33,000 deleted emails with Bleach Bit, something I -- I don't think anybody had ever heard of before.
Now, we're at the point where all of this is happening and now we have these whistleblowers coming forward. My question to you is very specific. Why if these whistleblowers are coming forward, did Merrick Garland and the DOJ send out a reminder memo that members of the Department of Justice the FBI are not to have contact with members of Congress?
It sounds like if you're talking to members of Congress and you are a whistleblower there could be serious repercussions. Am I reading that the right way? It seems like intimidation to me.
TURLEY: Well, I mean, the problem is that it can be read that way and I think that Merrick Garland has to show a degree of greater leadership, not just in assuring the American people that the department will cooperate with oversight in Congress, but also to take modest steps, proactive steps to show this wasn't a pretextual or political investigation.
Every chance he's had to do that, he hasn't done it. He opposed the redacted affidavit, was forced to do that. He's now opposing the special master and he's likely to be forced into that. These are steps that he could have taken.
Now, the fact is this latest filing has some very significant portions, including details that probably overlap with some redacted material in the affidavit, we don't know. But there's a great more detail in this filing that didn't appear to violate national security. But they do they believe that they saw obstructive conduct.
HANNITY: The very sections they cited made that warrant or caused that warrant to be so broad that it would allow them to virtually take anything they wanted out of Mar-a-Lago and go anywhere they wanted including into the closet of Melania Trump. In a case like this, wouldn't it be, shouldn't it be more specific if it's -- if we're going to stay within the realm of reasonable search and seizure versus unreasonable search and seizure?
TURLEY: I think the magistrate made a mistake signing off on this broad language. I think you're right it should have had greater particularity greater specificity because it was so unbelievably broad. What's amazing about this filing is department of justice tells the court, yeah, we probably did gather up some other material but we still shouldn't give it back because it's evidence that he mixed classified material with non- classified. I mean, that is really just breathtaking.
I mean you can establish a record and then give the material back particularly if it's attorney-client material. They don't explain why they just don't obviously create the record and then allow the material to go back. They also say in a footnote, we might be able to give more information about what was gathered but we're looking for extraordinary circumstances.
Well, it sounds like those extraordinary circumstances is to avoid a special master.
HANNITY: To me, it had all the fingerprints of a pretext to search for anything that they wanted and that's a very dangerous situation to put themselves in.
Jonathan Turley, thank you so much. We appreciate you being with us.
Now to another line from tonight's Trump legal team filing surrounding the special master. Quote, left unchecked, the DOJ will impugn, leak and publicize selective aspects of their investigation with no recourse but to somehow trust the self-restraint of currently unchecked investigators.
Here now is President Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, as well as FOX News legal analyst, Gregg Jarrett, and former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Good to see you all.
Let's get your take. Alina first.
ALINA HABBA, FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: I think that they were astute at their filing today. I'm proud of the legal team that brought this up. I think the fact that they did put this picture as Mr. Turley mentioned was more for the public eye and that is exactly what we're not supposed to do. It's not about the public impression, it's about justice and that is not at all what we've seen out of this administration right now.
So, unfortunately, we're seeing a lot of public play and I really hope that we can get the special master put in place so that we can have some impartial mediators to look at everything and get the documents that are supposed to be with the president back and look at everything in an import perfect eye.
Look, the Presidential Records Act protected him and allowed him to declassify materials. Nobody talks about that. Instead they look at the three criminal statutes that they brought.
I think our papers are good. I'm looking forward to hearing what the judge has to say tomorrow.
HANNITY: Pam, I'd like to get your take, especially as it relates to the declassified aspect of this. A president has broad range to declassify. Is that still an issue in question? Because I see people on the left they just automatically dismiss it, oh, that's not declassified. How would they know? Would they know?
PAM BONDI, FORMER FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL: They wouldn't know, Sean, but the President Trump would know, his legal team would know, the counsel's office would know, and President Trump has said he has declassified these materials. He was the president of the United States and has the right to do so.
You know, I think this is a case of who's going to police the police in this case. They don't want a special master. As a career prosecutor, if someone was challenging my ethics in a court of law and saying let's bring in an independent person to look at this, I would say gladly, please come in. Look at the evidence. Look what we have.
If they have nothing to hide they should welcome a special master instead of fighting President Trump and his legal team at every single turn.
HANNITY: You know, first, it was the passports, Gregg Jarrett. Then it's apparently attorney-client privilege information that they took out of Mar- a-Lago. I don't know if that has been returned yet. Now, it's about a taint team as you have rightly pointed out in your columns is people investigating themselves. Why the mysterious reluctance, resistance towards an objective special master, and how do you cite national security when you can have somebody with a security clearance be the special master?
GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah. Look, I read the court filing and I must say it is one of the most feeble and anemic arguments by Merrick Garland that I think I've ever read in a court filing. No legal standing to go to court, he claims. My goodness. A first year law student knows that if you're the target of a search and seizure, you have a constitutional right to go to court and argue a violation of the Fourth Amendment to either suppress it or at the very least have a special master review and segregate the material.
The other part of what was in the court filing by Garland was this crazy notion of obstruction of justice. What is that? You have to prove that a person acted corruptly and with an improper purpose and the United States Supreme Court has narrowed it further and said you have to act immorally with a depraved and evil purpose. Where is evidence of that?
If the president truly thought he had a right to access and custody of these presidential papers, there's no corrupt intent here. And look at all of the three criminal statutes and the warrants cited by Garland. They all require knowingly, deliberately, willfully breaking the law.
If the president said, wait a minute, this stuff, I declassified it, and have a right under the Presidential Records Act to have access to it, then you know, there's no criminal intent here. All of that is not addressed by Merrick Garland. Instead, they throw a prejudicial and gratuitous photograph in there meant to be incendiary and inflammatory. They spoon-fed it to the media.
It just shows you how ruthless and depraved Merrick Garland and his team of prosecutors are.
HANNITY: And I'm going to -- that's exactly where I'm headed. I'll put that picture up and keep it up there for a minute.
And, Alina, I want to get your take on this because this was obviously done for public consumption. This was obviously designed to influence public opinion. I think that is clear, as have all the other leaks as well. What happened to the Merrick Garland that said, oh, we'll do all of our talking in court and in our filings? Where's that guy?
HABBA: Yeah. Nowhere. What's happened is now they've put this picture out so that you would assume and I'm somebody who has been and the press loves to talk about this especially today. I'm somebody that has been in his office. I've seen it. This is not the way his office looks.
They give you this appearance that you walk in and there's these top secret documents just thrown about, A. B, they don't understand, something could be marked top secret could be marked classified. The Presidential Records Act, he would have said this is declassified, it doesn't get a new marking all the time. He's left the office. It is a complete public spectacle and I'm not really going to stand by it anymore.
You know, I personally have gotten intimidated. People have tried to intimidate me. It's not going to work. You can't just put a picture like this and say look --
HANNITY: Well, you've been down there -- did the FBI do that or was that the way that room looked before they went in there? Do you have any first- hand knowledge?
HABBA: Yeah, I'm sure you've seen the press today. I do have firsthand knowledge as you know. I have been down there, I'm down there frequently. I have never seen that. I have never ever seen that.
That is not the way his office looks. Anybody that knows President Trump's office, he has guests frequently there. It is -- it's just a joke. They literally must have gone in and taken out documents they wanted or cover letters as it is, and put it about so that the public believes that this is top secret documents that were on his floor. It's ridiculous.
I can tell you personally, it's ridiculous. I've never seen that.
HANNITY: Pam, so what we're really looking at here is the Department of Justice, the FBI staging a picture to influence public opinion. Wouldn't that also if God forbid with all the speculation about a possible indictment, wouldn't that also taint a jury pool?
Isn't that also designed to taint public opinion against Donald Trump by laying it out that way? And shouldn't Merrick Garland say we laid it out that way we took that picture, we released that picture and then he should be answering questions I think before Congress? Well, why didn't you keep to your word and do all of your talking in court? And where are all these other leaks coming from?
BONDI: Yeah, absolutely, Sean, and Alina's right. His office is very neat, orderly.
And I could never ever see him leaving anything classified, previously classified, at any time classified laying out in the open. This was made to taint a jury, to taint public perception of him.
They've been doing this for seven years and they're getting desperate. The midterms are coming up, then 2024. They're at the end of their rope and they're doing anything they can to hurt him.
All the search warrants I've been involved in, no one would ever pull things out and lay them out that way. It makes no sense other than they're still trying to destroy the president, and it's not going to work.
HANNITY: All right. Great analysis, all of you. Pam, thank you. Alina, thank you. Gregg Jarrett, as always, thank you.
When we come back, all right, more FBI whistleblowers are coming forward to expose the bureau's political bias and is Merrick Garland trying to stop them and intimidate them? And why did they work so hard to bury Hunter Biden's laptop from hell? Senator Ron Johnson with the very latest on all of that and more, straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HANNITY: And now, as we did report to you last night, FBI whistleblowers are coming forward at least 20, according to my sources, maybe many more, to expose the failures of FBI Director Christopher Wray and expose blatant bias and abuse inside the FBI.
And as I predicted, the FBI has been politicized and the Biden Department of Justice weaponized, which is now leading to a total collapse of credibility for both the DOJ and the FBI and now whistleblowers are coming forward they are sounding the alarm on what is a two-tiered system of justice. But the Attorney General Merrick Garland, he appears to be sending a veiled threat, issuing a memo this week, a quote, stern reminder to all personnel within the FBI, the DOJ about any contacts with Congress.
But wait, wasn't it the Democrats, they love whistleblowers or they do they only like non-whistleblowers, hearsay whistleblowers to attack Donald Trump? That would be rank hypocrisy.
And meantime, Senate Republicans are now calling on big tech to reveal their communications with the FBI following the revelations from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg that the FBI was directing the tech giant to be on the lookout for so-called Russian disinformation ahead of the 2020 election, which prompted Facebook to censor the very true and very accurate Hunter Biden laptop story with the rest of the media.
Here now with reaction is Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson. Senator, first between yourself, Senator Charles Grassley, Congressman Jim Jordan, do you have a good estimate of about how many whistleblowers have come forward?
SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): Well, first of all, we need to keep those whistleblowers identity protected, so I'm not going to reveal anything about them. But I would say that Merrick Garland is probably issuing an illegal order. You know, federal government employees have every right to come forward and talk to Congress and be afforded whistleblower protection. And the fact that the attorney general would basically threaten them is literally jaw-dropping.
So the good news is we do have people of integrity that are concerned about the credibility of their agency and they're coming forward they're starting to tell the truth. And that's the only way you're going to restore credibility to these agencies is if we expose the corruption and hold people accountable.
HANNITY: So when Merrick Garland issued this memo to Justice Department personnel reiterating, quote, their policy of prohibiting communications, do you interpret that to be intimidation and a threat of retaliation?
JOHNSON: Yes, again, I'm not a lawyer, but to me, that would seem to be an illegal order because, again, people working for the government have every right to come -- talk to Congress and be afforded whistleblower protection. So I don't see how Merrick Garland can issue that order.
HANNITY: Yeah. So my sources have been very specific in the areas that that these whistleblowers are discussing and there are three specific areas. One is the protection of Hunter Biden and as we know, there's very clear and compelling evidence, prima facie case of crimes committed and evidence on that laptop. It also would implicate his father, the big guy, about monies and payments and knowledge of business dealings where Hunter made millions without any experience. That would be part of the protection.
It would also entail, for example, looking into parents at school board meetings as domestic terrorists. Apparently, it was far more widespread, according to people that I have talked to and these are things the whistleblowers want to bring out and a political bias against Donald Trump. Those would be three real, serious, significant and frankly even dangerous issues if in fact those are proven true and again I thought the Democrats like whistleblowers. Why wouldn't they want us to hear from them?
JOHNSON: Because it will embarrass them or incriminate them.
The bottom line here is that whistleblowers, as Senator Grassley's office has said, that the FBI developed the scheme in August of 2020 to downplay the derogatory information of Hunter Biden basically and the investigation. Whistleblowers in my office said that once the FBI got to subpoena Hunter buying's laptop, higher up said you will not look at that Hunter Biden computer and then further, that the FBI would not change the outcome of the election, you know this election again.
So, obviously, they wanted to bury the Hunter Biden laptop. They did not want to investigate him properly. They're partisans and we need to expose all this information.
Now, the other thing that happened interestingly in August -- on August 6, 2020, this is when Senator Grassley and I both got unsolicited briefings that were later -- that were later leaked to "The Washington Post" for the purpose of smearing me. So I would argue the FBI is not only interfered in the 2020 election, they've interfered in this Wisconsin U.S. Senate election by smearing me through that leak "The Washington Post".
HANNITY: That's such a good point. Is there anything, Senator, that you can do in light of Merrick Garland's, quote, friendly reminder to people that work in the department, is there any protection that the Senate, that Congress, that elected officials can offer those people that believe that they have important information of wrongdoing, corruption perhaps, political bias perhaps, within the FBI? Short of being threatened with losing their job?
Because that seems to be a very chilling memo sent by Merrick Garland. That would be -- have a chilling effect I think on anybody, wouldn't it?
JOHNSON: Sean, there is very strong -- there are laws protecting whistleblowers. That's what I'm saying. It's jaw-dropping that Merrick garland would issue such an order. I think that order is illegal.
So I can offer whistleblowers anonymity and I can all offer them the whistleblower protection afforded to them by law. Let's talk a little bit about Joe Rogan's podcast and Mark Zuckerberg going on there, and him being approached by the FBI and him being told that there was possible -- the possibility of Russian disinformation just before the release of the information on Hunter Biden's laptop which seems rather convenient to me, which we all know now was absolutely accurate but with almost one voice, the Democratic Party, their friends in the media mob and big tech silenced the story and squashed it by saying oh that's likely Russian disinformation.
It was not Russian disinformation and I've seen numbers that 80 percent of people believe had the American people known all of this, had they been told the truth that this was accurate and not been lied to by institutions if you will, media among them, that they believe Donald Trump would have won that election hands down. That to me is -- has a chilling impact on this country if they're allowed to get away with that, how do you handle that?
JOHNSON: Well, first of all, we've seen polling that says if the American public would have known about what was on Hunter buying's computer, Joe Biden would not be president. So there's no doubt that the FBI interfered in our election 2020 to a far greater extent than Russia ever could have hoped to achieve. But again, it's important to understand that this is being led by the FBI. It sure seems that way. This is another piece of the puzzle.
So, they're trying to get Facebook to squash any information on Hunter Biden. They're trying to get Senator Grassley and I, did they also contact those intelligence officials and get them to write that letter that said that it had all the earmarks of a Russian information campaign. That letter itself was a Russia -- it was an information campaign and it also interfered in our election.
This is serious business. These are federal agencies with all the power of the federal government interfering in our election. It's jaw-dropping.
If you want me to get back in office, RonJohnsonforSenate.com.
HANNITY: Well, I do know they spent what, up to $40 million dollars on negative ads already?
JOHNSON: Over 50.
HANNITY: Over 50, wow.
JOHNSON: Over 50, smearing me, lying about me. Yeah, RonJohnsonforSenate.com if you want to help.
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
JOHNSON: Yeah, it's RonJohnsonforSenate.com and that's outside dark money. They hate it until they use it against me.
HANNITY: All right. The people of Wisconsin I think they would rather have a larger say in who gets to pick their senator.
Senator Johnson, thank you for being with us.
When we come back, Democrats, they are now resorting to, believe it or not, new lows as they try to deflect attention from their massive failures. We're going to show you the vicious smear that came from the White House today and we'll check in with Senator Marco Rubio next as we continue.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HANNITY: All right. Now, Mr. battle for the soul of the nation Joe Biden will use his primetime political speech tomorrow to launch more baseless smears and slander against conservatives, accusing them of being threats to democracy.
But, of course, Biden sits by silently as his own party is viciously attacking Republicans pretty much every second of every hour of every day, and failing White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre confirmed earlier today that Biden's speech will be filled with more reckless rhetoric and unhinged rage, you know, like earlier in the week when he used the word fascist.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: You know, the president thinks that there is an extremist threat to our democracy. The president has been clear as he can be on that particular piece when we talk about a democracy, when we talk about our freedoms the way that he sees is the MAGA Republicans are the most energized part of the Republican Party. That extreme -- this is an extreme threat to our democracy, to our freedom, to our rights.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HANNITY: Where was Joe speaking out against the 574 riots in the summer of 2020? But, of course, the far left failures extend way beyond Washington because just a week after California regulators put forward a new rule phasing out gas powered cars by 2035, guess what, California, the Golden State is now telling electric car drivers -- avoid charging your vehicles amid summer blackouts as the state's far-left energy policy goes from bad to worse.
Now this is a preview of coming attractions of new green deal socialism that Biden and the Democrats want for the entire country. By the way, even Elon Musk probably against his own financial interest because he sells electric cars has said repeatedly, we need to produce more fossil fuel energy.
Here with reaction, Florida Senator Marco Rubio.
You know, you really -- you can't, you can't make it up. Buy an electric vehicle, pay 20 grand more, forget about the mining of mother earth with big heavy equipment run by diesel fuel, manganese and cobalt and nickel and other minerals.
Forget the fact that the electric grid is mostly run on fossil fuels. Get the vehicle but then don't charge the vehicle. You really can't make it up, Senator.
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): Yeah, look, these -- the problem -- one of the critical problems with left-wing policies like you see coming from the Democratic Party these days is that they don't mesh with common sense and reality in the real world, right?
So they have these policies now, where we're going to go all this -- you know, battery-powered, solar panel, we don't have the infrastructure for that. We're not anywhere near, even though all the tax credits in the world are not going to change.
Number two, a lot of the materials that you need to build these batteries and solar panels all that comes from China. So, you're empowering them.
And number three, as I pointed out today, and that is we don't have the charging stations. And if we do, they're telling people not to charge the electric cars.
Meanwhile, the 90 something percent of the cars that are on the road driven by real everyday Americans, they require gasoline, and we're not producing more of it. We're not providing more of it. We're doing things that are hurting our economy and really hurting people's pocketbooks.
HANNITY: So, now, the president's going to give this political speech tomorrow which I find pretty interesting. Now talking about the soul of a nation, a guy that referred to half the country pretty much as semi- fascist. You know, remember in his inauguration speech, he talked about unity -- so much for that.
It almost sounds like are you or have you ever been a supporter of conservatism and Donald Trump? That's what it's beginning to sound like to me, Senator.
RUBIO: There's two things happening here. The first is they're criminalizing opposition. I said, they're trying -- and dehumanizing their opposition. So this is what they've been doing now for a while.
If you recall last year when they were doing this fake voter rights thing, there is no voter crisis in Georgia, for example. He gave a speech basically saying that anyone who didn't support the bill they wanted was a Jim Crow segregationist, which is absolutely outrageous and absurd.
Then we saw the attacks against the Supreme Court, basically calling them illegitimate, that these weren't real judges, that these guys -- and we saw a guy come halfway across the country and try to kill a Supreme Court justice and Brett Kavanaugh. We've seen churches vandalized. We've seen pro-life groups being attacked and firebombed. The next thing you see is any criticism, you know, you criticize the FBI, you get all these new stories about unprecedented threats to the FBI. You criticize the IRS, a couple days later, the IRS is saying, oh, we're now being threatened.
In essence, they've now established a shield where if you criticize them, they will claim that you're putting them in danger. They on the other hand do not criticize Republicans. They try to dehumanize, defame and smear Republicans by calling not Republican office holders, Republican voters, everyday people, by calling them semi-fascists.
Last week in Florida, Charlie Crist, running for governor once again here, said he didn't want the support of anyone who had voted or supported Ron DeSantis which is the majority of the state. In essence, they are no longer attack -- this is the distinction here. They're not attacking political leaders alone, they are attacking voters, which in Florida is the majority of voters because Donald Trump won the state by four points.
HANNITY: You know, as I have been digging into your opponent Val Deming's record, it looks like she nearly votes for Pelosi 100 percent of the time. I don't know if the people of Florida know that. She praised defunding the police, which is why I understand you got the overwhelming majority of support from law enforcement in Florida. Called violent riots -- correct me if I'm wrong -- a beautiful thing and said the crisis at our border which is unprecedented, a 30-year high, something that was a normal thing. She made all of those comments, and what is the exact percentage of the time she votes with Nancy Pelosi?
RUBIO: No, it's a hundred percent. She's never broken from Nancy Pelosi once. In essence, she would be like electing Nancy Pelosi to the U.S. Senate from Florida. But it goes further than that.
And look she's flush with money, right? Democrats all over the country are pouring money into her campaign. I heard Ron Johnson earlier, same thing here. I need people's help. My website is MarcoRubio.com. I ask if you can help, please do, because we're going to be outraised and outspent here from the far left.
But today, she goes on one of these zoom calls that she likes to do with small groups of liberals and she said inflation's not important, let's put that to the side. Let's not talk about inflation that's not the biggest issue that's not her top priority well that just tells you how disconnected she is from everyday people. But more importantly, it tells you how radical the Democratic Party's become on some of these ideas, but she's a radical rubber stamp.
HANNITY: What can they run on? They can't run on the border, certainly. Will they claim success on that?
Forty-year high of inflation, record high gas prices, a disastrous foreign policy, we don't have law and order, they support defund, dismantle and no bail, our school systems, CRT, age inappropriate materials being taught in school? What are they going to run on, Senator?
RUBIO: Well, she thinks Val Deming says that the border crisis is nothing new. There's no big deal there. She thinks inflation is something we need to put aside in a corner and not be focused on. She clearly isn't -- she tries to portray herself as a, you know, law enforcement. She was once a police officer. That's been a long time ago.
In the last six years in Congress, she's turned her back on the police departments and law enforcement. That's why they've all endorsed me. She's actually helped the left attack them as you pointed out.
So I think she's going to run on what the left runs on, a lot of money, the help of the mainstream media, and I guess calling Republicans and people who vote for them fascists.
HANNITY: Senator, your seat is critical if Republicans have -- are to have any hope of uh retaking the Senate. Same with Ron Johnson, and we're going to be following your race closely and people should not take any race for granted. I think you'd agree with that.
All right. Thank you, Senator.
Coming up, FBI personnel reportedly calling on Director Wray to now step down. A man who knows the real reasons why will join us next. That exclusive, straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HANNITY: All right. We continue with our top story tonight. Now, the lawyer who is representing FBI whistleblowers says his clients are calling for the resignation of FBI Director Way amid his growing leadership failures and abuse of power inside the bureau and how it's been politicized.
Joining us now is retired FBI supervisor and attorney Kurt Siuzdak, along with FOX News contributor, last night's host of Laura Ingraham show, Jason Chaffetz.
Sir, based on your background, can I ask you and you're representing these whistleblowers, specifically what it is they're saying? I'm hearing there are three areas of concern that have come up. One would be prejudice against Donald Trump, protection for Hunter Biden, and three, it is far more widespread, the FBI looking into parents at school board meetings as domestic terrorists. Is that what you've heard?
KURT SIUZDAK, ATTORNEY: What I'm hearing is, first of all, it's the -- that the executives have done some criminal wrongdoing and are supporting - - and supporting issues that are actually in fact illegal, that the agents have been pressured to do things that they don't want to do. An agent should never be pressured to do an affidavit or to or to force to go into court and to say stuff that they won't believe.
Also, there are -- there's misconduct --
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: Can I just stop you, Kurt, for one second? Are you saying that -- and I've read this in "The Washington Times", that agents are being forced to sign false affidavits or pressure to?
SIUZDAK: Correct. Correct.
HANNITY: Wow.
SIUZDAK: Yes. I have one client who was actually removed because he was -- he told his agents not to do that. But there's been -- this has been an ongoing problem in the FBI, because executives have generally been given a pass for misconduct and now they're looking at a president who's not giving -- who's being treated just like the employees in the FBI.
Trump's not given -- is not given the same latitude that the executives in the FBI are given. There have been report after report over two decades how FBI executives who are involved in misconduct are actually the misconduct, the punishments are reduced, they're eliminated, but with Trump, he's being treated just like a regular FBI employee, and that's what's going on here. He's not one of the super citizens.
HANNITY: Jason, as you listen to this, and more importantly, you look at Merrick Garland's, quote, reminder to DOJ and FBI employees about talking to Congress, is that a threat? Is that intimidation? Is there an implied threat of retaliation if in fact you talk to Congress?
Because that to me would be covered under the Whistleblower Act which protects people that do that.
JASON CHAFFETZ, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: It's clear intimidation. It's clearly a shot across the bow. This came literally hours after there was reports that whistleblowers are coming forward then the attorney general issues a statement reminding people that they can't talk to Congress.
Well, guess what? You can talk to Congress. You can go talk to Senator Ron Johnson. You can go talk to Senator Grassley or Jim Jordan. Absolutely, you can do that. It is clear.
And to Kurt's point, remember, the inspector general has issued more than pages documenting the abuse of power within the Federal Bureau of Investigation from taking leaks and using them in political ways. Remember we had Kevin Clinesmith who doctored documents and had to plead guilty to that, but barely was he outed.
And there are lots of other examples. And unfortunately, for an agency, that's the premier law agency in the world, I think they've been tainted and, you know, what Director Wray was brought in as a changing of age -- to change things, an agent of change? And he hasn't done that, and I don't know why he's in that position if he's not going to change things.
HANNITY: Kurt, we have 15 seconds. Can you tell us about how many people have come forward that you know of?
SIUZDAK: Sean, there's 20, but remember, FBI employees or whistleblowers have to go to DOJ to seek relief, not the federal courts. They're stuck in DOJ.
HANNITY: Wow. This is going to be fascinating to watch. Thank you both for being with us.
All right. We'll take a break. More HANNITY right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HANNITY: All right. Unfortunately, that's all the time we have left this evening. As always, thank you for being with us. Thank you for making the show possible. Please set your DVR so you never miss an episode of HANNITY.
And don't forget Fox News anytime and foxnews.com, hannity.com.
In the meantime, let not your heart be troubled, our friend Pete Hegseth is filling in for Laura tonight. I have not publicly have the opportunity to congratulate you on the many weeks at number one on "The New York Times" list for your book "Battle for the American Mind." We are proud of you. Happy for your success, sir.
Content and Programming Copyright 2022 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2022 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
